Help with PPS London PCN appeal

ziggystardust22

Hi there,

I recently received a PCN from private parking solutions London limited for stopping outside my Royal Mail sorting office to collect a parcel. The area outside the sorting office is lined with bays and regular spaced signs stating “No parking at any time” - I had intended to post a dropbox image but unable to.  

It would seem that they have a person taking covert photos across the street. Ironically I was within 5 paces of the vehicle throughout and didn’t see a thing!

The company have sent evidence that I was stationary for 4 minutes and stated that I breached their contract by parking. I intend to appeal to POPLA with the principal arguments below (gleaned from reading similar cases on these boards), however would welcome any other suggestions/recommendations or conversely if you think I’m wasting my time by appealing!

1. Signage visibility is poor

Signage is not fully visible from the drivers perspective without stopping and exiting the vehicle to read. Terms and conditions are in unreadable text from the perspective of the driver.

2. Signage is forbidding in nature 

The headline signage states “No parking at any time” which implies no contract for parking can be entered into.

Per PPS London’s letter dated xx June 2022,

“The charge was issued because your vehicle was parked in an enforcement zone in strictly no parking area, which is a direct contravention of the advertised on the signage terms and conditions of parking.”

A levy was charged by PPS London as a breach of contract for parking (as opposed to trespass), however, signage indicates that parking a vehicle is not permitted at any time, hence a PCN cannot be justified. 

3. Vehicle does not meet the definition of parked

PPS London have provided evidence that my vehicle was stationary for 4 minutes. As mentioned, I briefly stopped to load a parcel from the adjacent Royal Mail delivery office. Loading and unloading is not parked. The duration of my loading period was below the 5 minute minimum grace period stated in section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice.

thanks in advance

KeithP

Signs stating “No parking at any time” are hardly offering a contract to park.

So, as you say, their suggestion that you had breached a contract is absolute rubbish.

ziggystardust22

does it change my argument if at the very bottom of the sign, in super small letters “do not park here unless you agree to the terms and conditions displayed”?

the terms and conditions are in similar small text “private land, strictly No parking at any time. Unauthorised parking will result in a parking charge notice of £100 being issued (reduced to £60 if payment received within 14 days) By parking on this land you contractually agree to pay the displayed charge”

Umkomaas

ziggystardust22 said:

does it change my argument if at the very bottom of the sign, in super small letters “do not park here unless you agree to the terms and conditions displayed”?

the terms and conditions are in similar small text “private land, strictly No parking at any time. Unauthorised parking will result in a parking charge notice of £100 being issued (reduced to £60 if payment received within 14 days) By parking on this land you contractually agree to pay the displayed charge”

Just an attempt at some contractual legalese B/S. A judge would put them straight, but that could be months away. Try all the other points with POPLA , but I've not seen them understand 'forbidding signs'. 

Coupon-mad

Your first POPLA point should be 'failure to offer the BPA minimum 5 minutes consideration period'.

ziggystardust22

Does personal circumstances ever come into consideration at POPLA appeal? Not to sound like an X factor sob story but I recently underwent surgery for bowel cancer hence cannot walk several miles into an industrial estate to pick up my medical supplies from the sorting office….it did butter no parsnips on my initial appeal to PPS London….

Coupon-mad

Sadly not.

ziggystardust22

I have drafted the below.

I would be grateful for any feedback

Dear sirs,

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 17/06/2022 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Private Parking Solutions (London) Limited (“PPS London”) – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 22/06/2022 and rejected via an email on 23/06/2022. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. No evidence of period parked - NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements

PPS London have not provided evidence of the duration that my vehicle was stationary. As mentioned, I briefly stopped to load a parcel from the adjacent Royal Mail delivery office. Loading and unloading is not parked. The duration of my loading period was below the 5 minute minimum grace period stated in section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice.

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to: “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

PPS London’s NtK simply claims “we have issued Parking Charge Notice […] to your vehicle because it was parked […] on the 25th June 2022 at 12:00.”

There is no mention of duration, nor do additional supplied images provide any indication of length of duration aside from earliest time stamped photo of 11:56:49 and latest time stamped photo of 12:00:37, a duration of 3 minutes, 50 seconds.

2. Grace Period: BPA  Code of Practice – non-compliance

The BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

“The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract.The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.”

As detailed above, the supplied evidence by PPS London shows my vehicle stationary for 3 minutes, 50 seconds, which is well below the minimum 5 minute grace period as recommended in the BPA Code of Practice.

3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirement and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

4. Signage visibility is poor

Signage is not fully visible from the drivers perspective without stopping and exiting the vehicle to read. Terms and conditions are in unreadable text from the perspective of the driver inside a vehicle. There is no safe space to stop the vehicle and exit to read the signage outside the restricted parking area.

5. Signage is forbidding in nature 

The headline signage states “No parking at any time” which implies no contract for parking can be entered into.

Per PPS London’s letter dated 23 June 2022,

“The charge was issued because your vehicle was parked in an enforcement zone in strictly no parking area, which is a direct contravention of the advertised on the signage terms and conditions of parking.”

A levy was charged by PPS London as a breach of contract for parking, however, signage indicates that parking a vehicle is not permitted at any time, hence a PCN cannot be justified. 

Coupon-mad

Remove the clunky and ungrammatical intro that people keep copying; it's horrible

"I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 17/06/2022 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Private Parking Solutions (London) Limited (“PPS London”) – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 22/06/2022 and rejected via an email on 23/06/2022. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge".

...and I would NOT admit to unloading as POPLA don't know the difference.

Instead say:

I was seeking out and reading the signs to find where I could or could not park, and as it was completely unclear and looked like a trap, I left within 4 minutes without seeing any ticketer.  They must have been hiding and acting in a predatory way. It would seem that they have a person taking covert photos across the street. Ironically I was within 5 paces of the vehicle throughout and didn’t see a thing!  This conduct is not compliant with the BPA Code of practice rules on consideration periods.

ziggystardust22

Thank you, that’s great advice - really appreciate it.